Department of Cariology, Endodontology and Periodontology, University of Leipzig, Germany.
J Dent. 2018 Sep;76:46-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.06.007. Epub 2018 Jun 19.
To evaluate early quality of composite restorations with a universal adhesive in different application modes clinically and with optical coherence tomography (OCT).
22 patients with four non-carious cervical lesions each received composite restorations (Filtek Supreme XTE, 3 M). The universal adhesive Scotchbond Universal(SBU, 3 M) was applied with three etching protocols: self-etch (SE), selective-enamel-etch (SEE) and etch-and-rinse (ER). The etch-and-rinse adhesive OptiBond FL (OFL, Kerr) served as a control. Restorations were imaged by OCT (Thorlabs) directly after application (t). After 14 days (t) and 6 month (t) OCT imaging (interfacial adhesive defects) was repeated combined with clinical assessment (FDI criteria). Groups were compared by Friedman-/Wilcoxon- and McNemar-Test.
No differences were seen clinically between groups (p ≥ 0.500). OCT assessment revealed more adhesive defects at the enamel interface with SBU/SE at tt compared to all groups (p ≤ 0.016). OFL showed more defects than SBU/ER (t: p = 0.01; t: p = 0.083). At dentin/cementum interface OFL exhibited more adhesive defects than SBU with all conditioning modes (t, t, p ≤ 0.003) and at t to SBU/SE and SBU/ER (p < 0.001). Since t defects with SBU were detected more frequently in the SE and SEE modes compared to ER (p ≤ 0.037). In contrast to SBU defects increased with OFL up to t (p ≤ 0.007).
In contrast to clinical evaluation, OCT revealed subtle adhesive defects directly after application that might interfere with clinical success. It was demonstrated that ER does not decrease initial adhesion of SBU to dentin.
通过光学相干断层扫描(OCT)评估不同应用模式下通用粘结剂的复合树脂修复体的早期质量。
22 名患者,每例患者均有 4 个非龋性颈壁缺损,接受复合树脂修复(Filtek Supreme XTE,3M)。采用三种酸蚀处理方案(自酸蚀 SE、选择性釉质酸蚀 SEE 和全酸蚀 ER)对通用粘结剂 Scotchbond Universal(SBU,3M)进行应用。粘结剂 OptiBond FL(OFL, Kerr)作为对照组。应用 OCT(Thorlabs)直接在应用后即刻(t)、14 天后(t)和 6 个月后(t)对修复体进行成像(界面粘结缺陷),并结合临床评估(FDI 标准)进行重复。采用 Friedman-/Wilcoxon-和 McNemar 检验对各组进行比较。
临床评估各组间无差异(p≥0.500)。OCT 评估显示,与所有组相比,SBU/SE 在 tt 时牙釉质界面的粘结缺陷更多(p≤0.016)。与 SBU/ER 相比,OFL 的缺陷更多(t:p=0.01;t:p=0.083)。在牙本质/牙骨质界面,与所有处理模式相比,OFL 的粘结缺陷均多于 SBU(t、t,p≤0.003),且在 t 时也多于 SBU/SE 和 SBU/ER(p<0.001)。与 SBU/ER 相比,SBU 在 SE 和 SEE 模式下的缺陷在 t 时检测到的频率更高(p≤0.037)。与 SBU 相比,OFL 的缺陷随时间增加,直到 t(p≤0.007)。
与临床评估相比,OCT 直接在应用后显示出细微的粘结缺陷,这可能会影响临床效果。研究表明,ER 并不能降低 SBU 对牙本质的初始粘结。